Unwire Portland
Jesse Beason
Portland is ready to go wireless. Unwire Portland is a unique way of bringing wi-fi to our entire city. In an effort to build a citywide wireless network offering wi-fi and other wireless internet technologies, the City will issue an Request for Proposals (RFP) for network services. This RFP will bring together companies interested and willing to build a network that providers can make available to every Portlander.
Wanna know more? There's a public workshop on July 28 from 5:00 - 7:00 pm at OAME where you can hear about the benefits and savings Portland can expect with this new form of public access. Sam will be talking a bit about why he and the rest of council unanimously support this project, too. You can also learn more on the project's website.
Posted by Jesse Beason on July 12, 2005
(17) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Events, Jobs & Economy, North Portland
Comments by site visitors
While I don't support HB 2445 in the slightest, our approach would not be illegal under this bill.
The city will not own, operate or manage this network. It will, however, buy services on a privately-owned network.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | Jul 13, 2005 9:51:54 AM
I am all for city wide wifi, but why support this plan that relies on users paying for access when Personal Telco is doing the same thing with a volunteer force for no money and providing it for free? Why shouldn't the City just throw in with PTP?
Posted by: Mikey | Jul 13, 2005 1:38:35 PM
Ho hum. Looks like a city-sponsored way to offer an alternative to "last mile" consumer internet access. The end-user costs will be similar to current forms of internet access, yes? Either a monthly subscription, or one-time access fees?
Does anyone really pay money to use Starbucks T-mobile hotspots when they can walk across the street to a local joint with free access?
Will anyone pay money to access the internet in a city with the highest per-capita concentration of free wifi spots in the nation?
It's an okay business idea but doesn't appear to offer Portland any real value.
Posted by: gene | Jul 13, 2005 1:57:30 PM
Mikey: Agreed. Throwing in with PTP and expanding the base of free wifi coverage would offer Portland businesses and consumers a true value-add. Something they can't get in other cities and shopping centers. Something to draw them into Portland and set us apart.
If the current project added a "fareless square" aspect, perhaps it could do both. Free wifi in downtown Portland with a pay-to-play infrastructure setup for close-in homes and businesses.
Posted by: gene | Jul 13, 2005 2:03:57 PM
Gene and Mikey,
Great questions. Let me also say that I began this endeavor thinking much the same as you both have talked about. Living close to a PTP node, I benefit from the lovely free access. But, someone is paying for free wi-fi.
In the case of free spots offered through PTP, it is either businesses who recognize the value of offering it to their customers, or individuals/businesses who are generous in their desire to share their broadband connection. But somebody is paying. And, in plenty of places, this doesn't mean free wi-fi in the home, on the street, on the Max, or in your startup company on the second story of a building in Lents.
A citywide wireless network is not just for those fortunate enough to have broadband in the home, and just want to take some time to check email over an americano away from home. The network brings, I think, an opportunity to bring more affordable broadband to more people. In the end, I also think the cost of ubiquity is not doable on the small scale of PTP.
I do think a fair amount of people and businesses would pay a monthly fee, lower than traditional broadband, if it meant ubiquitious wi-fi coverage throughout Portland on a laptop, PDA, cell, etc.
The city is paying no money to build this network. However, the city has a tremendous amount of cost savings that we realize with a citywide network. They center around two things 1) Public safety and 2) Field access.
Public safety wise, we save time, and hopefully lives, by having access to data on the fly for police officers, firefighers and other safety personnel that we can't get with current technology.
Field access, we save money by switching current wireless technologies to wi-fi, and we open up opportunites for folks out there doing inspections, meter reading, parking enforcement, maintenance and a slew of other "out in the field" stuff.
Bottom line, the city would be building some type of closed network to fulfill these needs if there wasn't the leadership to have a network available for everyone. No one, also, is clamoring for the city to pay for the buildout, maintenance and upgrade of a network, along with its customer service and help desk needs.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | Jul 13, 2005 2:32:10 PM
I like a fareless downtown idea--it would really make downtown competitive for businesses. I'd love to see that as a strategy to keep attracting businesses to our core.
Posted by: Jessica Roberts | Jul 13, 2005 2:34:10 PM
That "fareless square" idea is interesting, as I think they are planning on using the "walled garden" idea of making certain sites (city and government stuff) freely available.
Which is great, I guess. I don't see it being a common use-case however.
Posted by: Mikey | Jul 13, 2005 2:34:31 PM
For the city, and city services, this is a great idea. No argument.
I am skeptical that a company would offer city-wide wifi for cheaper than broadband. City wide wi-fi seems like something that would be more valuable than a broadband connection, and therefore more expensive.
And also, I would be VERY concerned with the potential user agreements the company would place on this. (they'd have to make it illegal, for example, for me to share my wi-fi account, or I could just make it a PTP node...)
All of these things are simply concerns. I am very glad the city is looking into this!
Posted by: Mikey | Jul 13, 2005 2:41:39 PM
Jesse, can you promise us there'd be no chance of a non-compete clause that prohibits people from sharing their own wifi, such as Personal Telco projects? It would be a terrible thing to lose that community asset.
Posted by: Jessica Roberts | Jul 13, 2005 2:44:37 PM
Jessica,
I don't think I can offer a promise.
I can say that there is nothing keeping anybody from starting a citywide wireless network right now, free or otherwise. That if they did, there is nothing preventing yet another person/company from doing the same thing. And if either of those happened, there is nothing allowing a network operator to tell anybody to shut down anybody else's wi-fi.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | Jul 13, 2005 3:03:51 PM
I don't think the City can require such a promise any more than the could for Qwest or Comcast.
But I do see the cloud as a Very Good Thing and NOT a replacement for the good work Personal Telco does. PTP works where someone can be found to donate bandwidth. The Cloud as a commercial enterprise can be much more comprehensive and becomes a much needed competitor to Qwest and Comcast. It is not just for mobile folks, it will work well for fixed location users too!
Posted by: Chris Smith | Jul 13, 2005 4:38:05 PM
Much like the cable companies are required to fund public access, perhaps they could also be required to support PTP.
Posted by: Mikey | Jul 13, 2005 4:44:54 PM
What's the end-user price point you're shooting for?
Posted by: Josh Berezin | Jul 13, 2005 7:31:25 PM
I am a 100% fan and supporter of hotspots and "city clouds". But I wonder if public hotspots might go terribly, terribly, wrong.
We're so immersed and connected -- right now -- who's to say public hotspots won't make things worse. Exacerbating our tensions and divisions, making our lives less engaged, less expansive, less enriched.
A positive outcome is the whole point.
I propose creating a few site-specific works of art for public places. They would utilize kinetic, aural or sculptural forms to inform, amuse and reflect on the world we share.
These public works of art would abstract the fundamentals that unite us, create a sense of wonder, celebration, and respect for our shared experience. They might be useful - even necessary - to set a positive tone for public dialog and understanding.
It wouldn't have to cost alot of money. The shared, collaborative idea is the thing.
Here are some additional ideas:
(http://www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4398)
I can't wait!
Posted by: Sam Churchill | Jul 14, 2005 7:07:28 PM
Sam, I don't think you could call these "public hotspots" since they will be owned by a 3rd party corporation, not the city.
Posted by: gene | Jul 14, 2005 8:50:43 PM
There is an alternative to the "Walled Garden" being floated: the "Drinking Fountain," which would provide a low-bandwidth level of service for free to all comers. I have a document on this at: http://rlucas.tercent.com/wifi.html
Posted by: Randall Lucas | Jul 27, 2005 10:40:39 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
If state Reps Mike Shaufler and Tom Butler get their way, this will be illegal:
The summary of HB 2445 reads:
"Imposes requirements on local governments with respect to provision of
telecom service by local government. Provides exceptions."
Posted by: Forethought | Jul 13, 2005 9:24:04 AM